[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Perl modules and perl upgrade

According to Charles C. Fu:
> > According to Zephaniah E. Hull:
> >> the upstream perl maintainers have proven that they will break
> >> things on such 'minor' level version changes.
> Chip Salzenberg <chip@perlsupport.com> writes:
> > Um, could you please give an example of such breakage?  We've been
> > extraordinarily careful not to break existing code when updating
> > Perl, and I'd hate to see our effort be discounted as a failure.
> Sorry if this has already been answered, but is the intention to allow
> 5.005 and 5.004 to both be installed?  Or is 5.005 going to conflict
> with and replace the 5.004 version, as the old 5.005 packages did?

IIRC, the idea is to permit them both to be installed.  Perl certainly
permits, even encourages, such multiple-version installations.

> one thing to watch out for is packages which have a Perl interpreter
> statically linked into them--in particular mod_perl
> (libapache-mod-perl).  (Are there any others?)  The problem is that
> such statically linked modules have a Perl include path for a
> specific version of perl.

Ah, nice point.  They'll have to depend on perl5.004-base or some such.

> - Instead, make mod_perl and any similar packages use a dynamically
>   linked Perl interpreter (but this option has performance
>   implications).

And bincompat problems too.  5.005 is not bincompat with 5.004.
Chip Salzenberg      - a.k.a. -      <chip@perlsupport.com>
      "When do you work?"   "Whenever I'm not busy."

Reply to: